The American Psychological Association has issued new professional guidelines for mental health professionals that claim "traditional masculinity" is "harmful" to boys and men.

"The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful," according to the APA.

It also alleged that "the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves."

What the fuck are these people smoking? One moment you are talking about stoicism and competitiveness and the next you are rambling about heavy drinking and avoiding vegetables.

tbh, it sounds like a whole lot of bullshit to me with questionable experimental design.

for those who don't know, 'significantly different' is a phrase that has a specific meaning in science. when you have an experiment, like the effect of a drug on a disease vs a placebo, you compare the results on the results of both groups using a statistical test to prove that the results are statistically ('significantly') different from one another. the result of this is the p-value. the p-value is not a definitive answer -- it's a measure of the probability that the differences seen came from chance. in academia, the p-value to be accepted as statistically different is .05 -- meaning there's less than a 5% chance that the observed differences between groups came from chance. the .05 cut-off is controversial and people rightly want it lowered, but it is what it is.

how this comes into play though is when you get big data sets and commit the cardinal sin of data dredging. let's say i have a number of people that i've followed for twenty years, and i track as many things as I can: height, weight, how much red meat they eat, education, what time they go to bed, etc etc. i then blindly decide to compare everything that i can and see what shakes out: effects of height on how much red meat eaten, education, time to go to bed, etc. given the large number of tests, at some point it's likely there's going to be statistical significance just because of chance. sometimes these things get published -- either because of idiot researchers that don't understand stats (there's a lot of them) or poor ethics. they'll then try to fit a reason to this conclusion.

the proper way to actually design an experiment is to have an actual hypothesis from the outset for a well-described reason ('we believe that adding x will significantly increase y compared to a placebo, due to blah blah blah'). so when a researcher comes out with just random statistical links, such as the one linked that says individuals who show competitiveness and stoicism are less likely to eat vegetables, it should put up a red flag that things need to be more carefully examined.

[L.N.E]Giblets [22|Dec 10:40 AM]: hey mushroom remember that day we were strugging and dog-o was like I'M GONNA PULL THE FUCKIN' PLUG and we both went "do it" and he just kinda limped out that was a good day and I guess what I'm saying is, well, we've not always seen eye to eye but I think our emotional bond is way deeper and stronger than any old nonsense about ideology or my low testosterone or your ridiculous handsomeness and wit and, well, it's long overdue, but David Mushroom Hedgehogstein, will you marry me?

Unironically this. Psychology is literally designed to fill the hole created by a lack of religion, a healthy respect for your parents/ancestors, and a shared system of values with your commmunity.

So it makes sense that the only psychologist I actually knew in real life wasn't just gay but was suspected of being a kiddie-diddler, too. I knew him through friends back in high school and some years later, he had given up his position at our hometown baptist church as their "youth pastor," abandoned religion altogether to become atheist and then came out of the closet as a homo. My best friend commented on said psychologist's habit of taking the young men from his "youth group" out to dinner alone. I wonder how many of the young men I went to school with had been molested or at minimum hit-on by him?

Unironically this. Psychology is literally designed to fill the hole created by a lack of religion, a healthy respect for your parents/ancestors, and a shared system of values with your commmunity.

i'm still caught on this. who are the other two retards that upvoted this? gapo can you post their names and addresses for me?

Logged

[L.N.E]Giblets [22|Dec 10:40 AM]: hey mushroom remember that day we were strugging and dog-o was like I'M GONNA PULL THE FUCKIN' PLUG and we both went "do it" and he just kinda limped out that was a good day and I guess what I'm saying is, well, we've not always seen eye to eye but I think our emotional bond is way deeper and stronger than any old nonsense about ideology or my low testosterone or your ridiculous handsomeness and wit and, well, it's long overdue, but David Mushroom Hedgehogstein, will you marry me?

Let's ignore the obvious fact that being a man makes you naturally more competitive, aggressive, dominant and stoic, as those are clearly sexually driven traits (controlled by hormones) that improve your standing among females, and that women will almost universally prefer men who are dominant, aggressive and competitive.

"The more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves."

"Traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression" is to blame. The implication is that being masculine is a choice. Hmm, that's interesting. I suppose all the gay men who act flamboyant and feminine are making a choice to do so? And by extension, the transgenders are making a choice to act feminine or masculine?

It's curious because that is precisely what has been argued AGAINST by the same psychologists pushing this shit for years. You are a man deep down, no matter what type of vagina and ovaries you possess. You are a woman deep down, whether or not you have a cock and balls. There is no choosing to be done. You just are what you feel you are. No amount of therapy, and nothing related to your life could possibly have changed this (such as feminization or molestation during childhood).

But you can not be a man by nature, if you have a cock and balls. That is impossible. That is a choice.

Logged

Quote from: Ozma

You are doing a good job, don't take a little thing like this too seriously. There are always little drama flareups in forums!

Quote

I don't want people thinking that lobbying a bunch will get you ousted (because that's really ridiculous and I don't play that way!)...And again, seriously, do not worry about this.

It's almost as if cultural marxism/progressivism is full of contradicting dogmas and cannot survive being put under actual scrutiny and therefore requires the suppression of dissenting voices to survive.

It's almost as if cultural marxism/progressivism is full of contradicting dogmas and cannot survive being put under actual scrutiny and therefore requires the suppression of dissenting voices to survive.

No no no, just listen and believe, it will all work out just don't question anything.